apple_update_review_detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Update', implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with 12 words, front-loaded with key information. No extra words or fluff. Every word earns its place. Example of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal summary. It doesn't explain return values, error states, prerequisites, or what happens when fields are left null. For a complex operation like updating app review details, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22% (only versionId and notes have descriptions). The tool description groups parameters into categories (contact info, notes, demo account) which provides a high-level summary, but does not add specific format, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema for the undocumented parameters. For example, it doesn't clarify that contactEmail, contactPhone, etc. are for reviewer communication.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'app review info', and lists specific fields (contact info, notes, demo account). However, it does not differentiate from other apple_update_* tools in the sibling list, such as apple_update_age_rating or apple_update_version_localization, which could cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for updating review details but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a versionId must be obtained first) or when not to use (e.g., if review is already submitted). The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.